Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmduke | Hacker News Reader

I think my ideal interpretation of how IP ownership should work would be that if you -- the creator -- own the IP, you deserve a share of value derived from it. But if you no longer own it (so, if you sell the painting, so to speak), then you aren't.

The notion of whether or not someone should get a cut of anything is incredibly subjective, and is more related to the mores and standards of the time rather than any objective (or even subjective) notions of fairness/justice.

I agree. I probably should have phrased my question better than using a vague word like should, since I meant it in more of a economic sense of incentivizing valuable work than a moral sense.

View on HN

> "But if you no longer own it (so, if you sell the painting, so to speak), then you aren't."

But that isn't IP. That's the creation of physical objects - and our understanding of it fairly nuanced and not very controversial. IP by definition cannot be "lost" by the creator, since it's about ideas and knowledge rather than their physical manifestations of said ideas.

A painter may "lose" a painting when they sell it, that's not the point under contention. The contention is, for example, if the painter should be compensated if the new owner replicates it and beings selling copies.

IP ownership cannot go by a "you no longer own it, it's fair game" state, because IP by definition cannot be meaningfully removed from one person and given to another.

See: music. I give you CD with my music on it - should I be compensated if you distribute copies of this music? Should I be compensated if you perform this composition on your own (i.e. a cover)? Who "owns" the music?

> IP by definition cannot be "lost" by the creator

Yes, it can. "Property" is the right to control, not the subject of the rights. IP is lost in the same way that physical property rights are lost -- I can sell physical property and retain possession of the physical object that is the subject of property rights, but still have lost the property as such.

Calling it property is considered a misnomer by many (eg http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/feb/21/intellectu... ) and in fact, in certain jurisdictions, there are certain intellectual property rights that cannot be lost by the creator ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_%28copyright_law%... ).

> Calling it property is considered a misnomer by many

Yes, and those people don't understand property.(The problem isn't their understanding of IP -- most of what they say about the nature of IP is correct; the problem is that they don't understand real property, tangible personal property, and intangible personal property other than IP, because if they did, they would understand that the contrasts they attempt to draw are specious.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com